Forum Moderators: martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

Affiliate Links and PR

Is this the right way to do it?

         

designaweb

9:30 am on Feb 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I have setup my affiliate links like this:

domain.com/widget-url.html?aff=0001

After stripping and storing the affiliate id I use:

header("HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently");
header("Location: $stripped_url");

to redirect to the actual page. Is this the right way to use affiliate links while maintaining PR from these inbound links?

designaweb

6:53 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I am about to move forward with this... It would be really appreciated if someone could give me the "heads up" on this one...

sugarrae

2:46 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



>>>while maintaining PR from these inbound links

Will it give you credit for links you didn't build, yes.

I don't know what having 30,000 301's pointing at you may or may do in regards to putting up any flags.

Expertu

2:54 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



You ight want to avoid so many "redirects".

Altough they are permanent redirect, Google might not want to see a website woth so many changing URL's.

Depending on your affiliates, you might have more redirect, than actualy pages in your website, right?

designaweb

12:59 am on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



The site iself consists out of approx. 25.000 pages. The amount of affiliate URL is limited, but the idea is to get a lot of them ofcourse...

designaweb

1:05 am on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Another solution I can think of would be the following:

aff.domain.com/widget-url.html?aff=0001

Making sure the aff.domain.com URL is inaccessible for spiders using robots.txt.

Then:

After stripping and storing the affiliate id I use:

header("Location: www.domain.com/ + $stripped_url");

No need for any 301 headers, since G. and other spiders abiding the robots.txt will be indexing these pages anyway, right?

PR is definately not passed on this way though... What are your thoughts?

designaweb

7:51 am on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I give up waiting for the reply of a helpful hand and went ahead with my first mentioned approach. I will report back here with succes/failure notices...

percentages

8:07 am on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



designaweb:

>I give up waiting for the reply of a helpful hand and went ahead with my first mentioned approach.

Sorry, I only just saw your post!

You are planning on implementing your links in exactly the same way as I implement mine......So, IMHO, do it!

I will add some other points:

1. I do not allow my affiliate sites to be crawled by search engines or any other types of bots I can detect. All bots obeying robots.txt are banned, all bots that don't obey robots.txt are banned via htaccess. (catching those is an on-going game).

There are spam bots that will generate thousands of clicks per day through affiliate sites, if you are being paid by the click the merchant will not appreciate this activity!

2. Respect your merchant partner, don't give them "bad-traffic".

3. Your Affiliate site needs to be "squeaky" clean, don't compromise it in any way. Drive traffic to it via the mechanisms that work, but, keep the links "squeaky clean" on the site the merchants see.

mister charlie

4:12 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



have you thought of using cookies? that way affiliates could just link to your domain.com/widget-url.html

straight backlinks.

designaweb

10:23 pm on Mar 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



@percentages

Thanks for the reply, but I think you misunderstood. I am the merchant, and I have my system setup like this for other affiliates to use...

@mister charlie

Maybe I am missing something here, but how do you suggest setting the appropriate cookie? If site A links to domain.com/widget-url.html, and so does site B, how do you expect me to define which visitor came from where? The HTTP_REFERER is not accurate enough, so that's not an option. Am I missing something here?